|
|
 | | | |
- close
- close
- close
- close
This excerpt taken from the SYT 20-F filed Mar 1, 2006. GMO Class Action Class action complaints were filed in 1999 and 2000 against Monsanto in federal court in the District of Columbia (Higginbotham et al. v. Monsanto Co.) and
in Illinois (Blades et al. v. Monsanto Co.) seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged antitrust violations by Monsanto and others in the sale and distribution of genetically modified insect resistant corn seeds and glyphosate-tolerant soya
seeds. The Higginbotham action was transferred in May 2000 to Illinois where the lawsuits were consolidated and in January 2001 both cases were transferred to federal court in Missouri. A number of Monsanto’s major competitors including
Syngenta Seeds Inc. and Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. were added as additional defendants in June 2001. On October 12, 2001 defendants filed separate motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. Plaintiffs subsequently stipulated to the dismissal of Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. on the ground that the company’s business does not include the sale of the products at issue in the case, and the court approved the
dismissal. Defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied in a court order issued on April 3, 2002. The case entered into the class certification discovery phase on January 15, 2002 and an evidentiary hearing was held by the court on April 28-29,
2003. On September 19, 2003, the court granted Monsanto’s motion for summary judgement dismissing negligence and public nuisance claims asserted only against Monsanto and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgement limiting the
antitrust claims to direct purchasers only. As a result of the dismissal of the tort claims, the action is now being captioned McIntosh, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al. On September 30, 2003 the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification by holding that plaintiffs failed to show that impact from the alleged antitrust violations could be proven with common evidence on a class-wide basis. On October 15, 2003 Plaintiffs petitioned the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals for
permission to appeal the District Court’s denial of class certification and on October 24, 2003, the District Court granted Plaintiff’s request to stay discovery while the petition was pending in the 8th Circuit. On December 18, 2003, the
8th Circuit Court of Appeals accepted plaintiffs’ appeal and on September 13, 2004 the Court heard oral argument on the appeal. In an opinion filed on March 7, 2005, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s denial of
class certification. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing on April 4, 2005 seeking a reversal of the denial of class certification. At a May 12, 2005 status conference, plaintiffs expressed their intent to proceed on behalf of the two
named farmers, but then indicated they were planning to seek certification of a new class limited to Roundup Ready soybean farmers only. This matter was fully briefed and heard by the Court on November 2, 2005 at which time the Court denied
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs withdrew their proposed Third Amended Complaint, leaving the First Amended Complaint and an order that they file a new complaint pending.
|
| |||||||
